• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2565 Excellent

About Kerbart

  • Rank
    Mun Marketeer

Profile Information

  • Location Elmwood Park, NJ
  • Interests Rockit sience
  1. The complication is that, yes, this might take a lot of time to get it done right, and wanting it now is justifiably unreasonable. But, but, but... SQUAD already took the money from those players!! That changes a lot, as players might have decided to forego on (legal) action based on the promise that something will be there early 2017. Without a refund it is totally understandable that console players have an "unreasonable" lack of patience. And while Squad may not have desired a shoddy port, about everyone had question marks about the choice of FTE, either from (personal) experience or Googling them. It is true that Squad had little control over the work delivered by FTE but they were the ones who picked them and one cannot help but think "told you so."
  2. Maybe where you live, but not in 99% of the countries of the world. Oh well. I prefer Blimpies, by the way. The ingredients seem fresher, they don't skimp on hiw much they put on sandwich, and they don't think there's only 11" in a foot.
  3. A controller based on a feedback input signal. PID stands for Proportional, Integral, Derivative -- the three ways the controller can process input data. For instance, you could control velocity of a car by comparing your actual velocity (using it as an input feed) against a target velocity and adjust throttle proportionally to how far you're over or under the target velocity. Or, you could control your velocity by measuring the distance to a control point and adjust throttle proportionally to how that distance changes over time (derivative) Similar you could integrate your measurements over time and use that as your input signal. Integrating and deriving "on the fly" may sound horribly complicated but it's actually something that is fairly easy to do (with reasonable accuracy) with analog circuits; PID controllers have been built for over a century and are fairly well understood as a means to control dynamic processes. The SAS units are PID controlled for instance.
  4. Ah, so it's Kerbalstuff?
  5. Thank you! And welcome back! (I assume "back" because... well, Spaceport!)
  6. No, it's not now dead... It's been dead for... ages, really. From it's ashes rose Spacedock, though, so you can try that one.
  7. Congratulations on making it into orbit! Now you just need to practice it until it gets routine (maybe rebuild your craft in Sandbox mode so it doesn't cost you money in career). When practicing you can do a couple of things: Experiment with where you start your turn, and how fast you turn. It's general practice to be around a 45° angle at an altitude of 10,000m but for your rocket that might be higher. Or lower. Once you make it in orbit on a regular basis, play with the design. Can you replace one FLT-400 with a smaller FLT-200 tank? What if you start with two strap-on SRB's? Can you control your orbit? For instance, maneuver your craft in a 75×75km (apo×peri) orbit? Once you've achieved that, work on a standard de-orbit procedure (for instance: "retroburn to a 75×25km orbit, stage for re-entry at 70km, keep retrograde") and then keep track of the longitude in Kerbal Engineer, so you can pinpoint your landings close to the KSC (just for fun).
  8. Perhaps it's a scaled down Saturn 5? (Hint: take a good look at the LM pictures from a few weeks ago)
  9. Take a look at this section of the wiki. If we take your original design into account, then we can say that there's two stages (let's ignore the capsule when it does reentry). The first (top) stage, is the capsule, FL-T400 and engine. I'm including heat shield, parachute, and four wings for stabilizing, as you did, and a decoupler for the capsule. And I'm assuming an LV-T45 Swivel (as it gimbals and gives you better control) Total weight without fuel: 3080kg Total weight with fuel: 5080 kg Efficiency (Isp) of the engine: 320s -- Real efficiency is measured in exhaust velocity, but then you have that whole unit (m/s or ft/s) thing. So it's often divided by one standard g (9.81m/s) to get a meassurement in seconds, which is the same regardless of the units you're using. However, that standard g then comes back in delta V calculations: dV = Isp×g×[ln(total weight with fuel) - ln(total weight without fuel)] Plugging in the numbers gives us: dV = 320 × 9.81 × [ln 5080 - ln 3080] = 1570 m/s Now we can calculate the dV for the bottom stage. Total weight without fuel: 5080 kg + 800 = 5880 kg (Total "wet" weight of the top stage, and dry weight of decoupler and RT-10 booster) Total weight with fuel: 8692 kg Isp of RT-10 SRB: 170 (numbers quoted are 170-195, 170 being at sea level which is where we use them. Note how much lower than the Swivel!) dV = Isp×g×[ln(total weight with fuel) - ln(total weight without fuel)] Plugging in the numbers gives us: dV = 170 × 9.81 × [ln 8692 - ln 5880] = 650 m/s If you add another stage, you can calculate the dV for that one in a similar matter. Total dV of this rocket: 2220 m/s — not enough to take it into orbit. Which is why you need three FL-T400's. Kerbal Engineer is great because it does these calculations for you, but doing the math "by hand" a couple of times is useful because you get a better insight in how things work. The rocket equation teaches a couple of things that are not all that intuitive: The number of engines doesn't increase or decrease total efficiency. In fact, more engines means more weight which will lower your dV. But very low TWR's can be bad too! A high Isp looks great but the dry mass the engine adds to the total weight of the ship is important as well. This is why the LV-909 is such a great performer (it weighs nearly nothing) for small (1-kerbal) ships and why the LV-N nuclear engine isn't (for small ships), because its high weight (despite superior Isp) The tyranny of the rocket equation means that, given a certain Isp, you need a certain fuel-to-dry-mass ratio to achieve a goal (say, low Kerbin Orbit). There's no way around that. Also, those ratios tend to propagate through stages. The lighter your space craft (top stage) is, the bigger the weight savings at the bottom. Bringing an extra 1000 m/s of dV with you "just in case" means paying a horrible price in fuel and mass at the bottom stages.
  10. @HebaruSan showed (domo arigato!) that with three FLT-400's you should be able to get into orbit. KSP is notorious for not showing data that is pretty essential if you want to take building beyond wildly guessing, and the Kerbal Engineer mod does a good job in giving you that data. There are two important factors into "making it into orbit": Enough fuel: this is the delta-V bit. Just as we can express the fuel capacity of a car in "miles" because it's more meaningful (one gallon in a Ford Fiesta gets you further than one gallon in a Ford F150), fuel for a rocket is expressed as "delta-v" which is the total change in velocity a rocket can achieve. Without diving into details, you will need about 3500 m/s delta-V to get into low Kerbin orbit. Enough thrust: DV is a theoretical number and is based on some assumptions. One of those assumptions is that you're moving; if your rocket isn't powerful enough it's not getting of the launch pad! Thrust-to-weight (TWR) tells you that. And as pointed out by Mr. HebaruSan, you'll need something "comfertable" north of 1.0 -- the 1.8 is about the sweetspot of "enough" without overdoing (and without spending needless cash and weight on too much thrust). Do you need a solid fuel rocket to start? No. In general, Liquid Fuel rockets will get you better bang for the buck (weight) than solid rocket boosters. Because of their weight, the contribution in DV is very little. But... you need to get off the pad. And that's where SRB's excel: they offer tremendous TWR's. So, getting started with an SRB (or a pair strapped to the side of your rocket) is not a bad idea just to get that initial bit of speed. As you get higher you get into a thinner atmosphere, and as your flight path is more horizontal you don't have to fight gravity as much, and your TWR can be lower. Also keep in mind that Kerbal Engineer lists data based on vacuum performance, which for some engines is significantly better than for others. The LV-909 for instance (the small 1.25m engine) has an atrocious atmospheric performance. The two larger 1.25m engines that you have are a lot better in atmospheric flight, in that respect (but the LV-909 beats them once in space when it comes to efficiency)
  11. Hello @jonpfl, I'm afraid that rocket will not get you into orbit, no matter how hard you try; you'll need at least three of those FLT-400 tanks. If you're math is decent, we can show you how to calculate if you can make it into orbit or not. In addition, although many will not agree with me, I see Career mode as a challenge mode, not as a learn mode. While you get "eased" into the various parts, you will also have the challenge of not having the right parts to make a simple rocket to get you into orbit. My personal suggestion is to start with sandbox mode (just try to keep it simple & light!) , get a hang of getting into orbit and then advance to career mode (but again, that's personal opinion. Not everyone will agree with me on that). Good luck!
  12. I wouldn't say that. I've had my fair share of exploding solar panels in the past. But not with 1.2 That's a new one for me, haven't encountered this problem in 1.2 at all That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, my best suggestion to the OP is to figure out how to trigger this behavior reliably so it can be researched (or mitigated with "don't do that")
  13. Or perhaps he was just mentioning sequel because the discussion veered off in the direction of "extension," "add-on" vs "sequel" (as the-lack of-ability of the DLC to run without the original game was discussed) The way I read it, was "that would be a sequel and that is not what this is" perhaps I'm wrong and S. disclosed something he shouldn't be disclosing (DLC would see lower slaes if KSP2 is around the corner) but I cannot imagine Squad having the resources to develop a new KSP from scratch.
  14. That would explain "catching up," but it doesn't explain becoming the tallest people in the world (with the trend line of average height not showing any flattening or slowing down the yearly increase in average height).
  15. It's as much cheating as putting a bucket inside your sandcastle to make it stronger. Unless you're in a competition with strict rules, no one really cares. There's also many cases where reversing is unequivocally "legit": You're building a craft and at the launch pad realizing, because you took out a part, KSP decided to shuffle up your staging order And after fixing that, KSP decided to put crew back in your craft that's supposed to launch crewless (because it's an unwieldy space station without abort facilities) While adding a maneuver node, KSP decides that it's actually "time warp here" and by the time you've stopped it, you've missed the window for a rendez-vous or circularization The kraken strikes Etc