• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,793 Excellent


About Foxster

  • Rank
    Shush! Did you hear something?

Profile Information

  • Location Somewhere beyond the sea

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's not just you. I've lost count of the times I have placed a part thinking I had the right multiple of symmetry turned on when I only had single and so I have to go to the bother reattaching it and move it back into place.
  2. Foxster

    MK2 Cargo bay less draggy when open?

    Just checked it with the aero stats on and I can confirm this. Constant throttle and level flight... Drag at 321m/s at 3160m with CB closed was 10.81 Drag at 321m/s at 3160m with CB in middle of opening process was 12.10 Drag at 322.5m/s at 3160m with CB open was 10.70 I'd expect much more drag with the cargo bay open, not a little less. You used to be able to use this CB as an air brake.
  3. Foxster

    Cannot solve oxidizer-starved engine

    It might be saying starved of oxidizer but it might be starved of LF too. You have your fuel tanks clipped inside the service module (after being surface mounted?) and so it's not obvious just how the fuel flow will be working from those tanks to the engine. You could try adding some fuel ducts from the tanks to the service bay or the engine and see what happens.
  4. I can't remember why but the advice I had some time ago was for a few degrees off a polar orbit. I typically pick 85°. Someone might be able to explain why or why not this might be better than 90°.
  5. Only if consumed in large quantities. A bit like dogs and chocolate. One or two pandas have been shown to do little harm to the average Kerbal. Though, as you say, they get nothing from the consumption. I once saw a bull Kerbal rip apart and gorge on three full-grown pandas. It was fairly ghastly. The Kerbal was licking gobbets of viscera off itself for a couple hours but, apart from awful wind, it really didn't seem to do it much harm. Funnily enough they won't eat cooked panda. Just the other day I barbequed a couple and good eating was had by all, except Jeb who wouldn't touch it. He would rather have a couple of raw snow leopards any day.
  6. Kerbals breed very quickly and, like some spiders, the young eat their parent and then each other until just one remains. On a long voyage a Kerbal called, say, Gerald sets off and a Kerbal called Gerald returns but it's a quite different Kerbal. Incidentally...Kerbals taste like panda.
  7. Why restrict yourself like this? Why not build a craft with, say, 6000dV and give yourself lots of room for trial and error?
  8. Foxster

    Delta-v required to return from Mun

    Kerbals are biological rocket parts and just as disposable.
  9. AFAIK the ability to close intakes is a left-over from previous functionality. I don't believe that it now does anything for drag and just chokes the intakes, which I'd say has limited usefulness.
  10. Foxster

    Eve Gravity Assist vs Direct to Moho

    This thread has reminded me of the flexibility in playing KSP... If it's your thing then you can put effort into finding a clever maneuver to save dV. Or you can engineer your craft to give you enough dV that a relatively brute force transfer will work. Depends where your interest and skill lies. Both will get the job done.
  11. Foxster

    Eve Gravity Assist vs Direct to Moho

    Do it if you fancy a challenge but otherwise it's a bit of waste of time. The dV saved could likely be made up with optimising your craft a little. If you are struggling to find the dV you need then say something about the mission or post piccies.
  12. Fins at the rear are preferable to useless ballast mass at the front for a couple of reasons... Fins are lighter, so you are carrying less deadweight to orbit and wasting dV. Some fins are steerable, which helps with getting a good gravity turn. There are downsides though: Fins add mass and, particularly, more drag. So if you design the rocket to minimise or avoid them then it can be more efficient but perhaps not enough to matter much unless the craft is large. Then a combination of keeping mass high with fuel priority, using engines with good gimballing, and some fins will probably be efficient.
  13. Foxster

    2.5m eve lander

    You only need enough life support to get to orbit. A mothership can have a cache for a return journey.
  14. Not necessarily on Eve. That might be true on an airless or thin atmosphere body but on Eve the increased drag of the engines+fuel and coupling parts means you won't get the hoped-for payload doubling.
  15. Foxster

    Delta V to ascent Eve

    The thing about Eve compared to Kerbin is that you have to take the thickness and draginess of the atmosphere much more into account. It is possible to build a craft that will put a Kerbal in a mk1 capsule into orbit from sea level that weighs about 23t and with only ~5700 dV. That craft must be very carefully designed and flown though. A similar but non-optimal craft can weigh three times as much and take 8000+ dV to get to orbit. The "secret" is to make your Eve craft low drag. Make it thin and don't have anything not absolutely essential on board and certainly nothing that adds any drag; with one important thing being to drop anything not needed to make orbit before lifting off e.g. chutes, air-brakes, solar panels, science experiments, landing gear, etc. So, there is no simple answer to your question. It depends on your launch altitude, the draginess of your craft and the efficiency of your engine choices.