Foxster

Members
  • Content Count

    3,085
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,855 Excellent

3 Followers

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. Foxster

    Is there a point to closing intakes?

    You can get a definitive answer by turning on aero physics data via the alt-F12 menu - assuming you are using a PC.
  2. Foxster

    Is there a point to closing intakes?

    I just checked to make sure it hadn't changed recently...Makes no difference to drag whether open or closed.
  3. Foxster

    If I ever make it back from Eve

    You mean a man-in-a-can to orbit? If so then I can put this 47t craft into orbit from Eve seal level with about 1000dV to spare... Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j1u2bgz0gb76gr3/GRS 2.craft?dl=0 If it's a bit heavy and you can fly well then you can lose an upper stage.
  4. Foxster

    Mun landing rocket design

    Coupla things... Get more drag at the back end. You have that big draggy lump at the front and not much at the back. Add fins at the back until it flies right. Use autostrut if you aren't already. A wobbly rocket can be a flippy rocket.
  5. I do understand what you mean but personally I find the limitation of the stock parts adds to the challenge and the fun. Eve-return is kinda the end-game experience for KSP and it takes something away from that to use easier engines.
  6. Foxster

    Gravity turn and TWR

    Depends on just where the lower TWR kicks in but it is usually "a good thing". You obviously need 1+ TWR to get off the ground vertically and having a decent head of steam gets you out of the thicker atmosphere quicker. Once you are into your gravity turn though then a lower TWR will indicate you aren't carrying too much heavy engine unnecessarily and you won't go so fast that you lose a lot of dV to drag losses or risk heatplosion. For Eve it can be essential to either have a lower TWR upper stage or throttle back a lot to avoid high drag losses and/or heatplosion.
  7. Definitely don't need aerospikes but if you haven't fleshed out the tech tree then there might but some other bits that will make it harder to orbit without. If you can get to Eve orbit then why not do Gilly first and maybe Ike too. They are pretty easy in comparison and will really fill the tech tree if you do all the science you can.
  8. Yup, been saying this for a while. The parts' images need a little graphic on them with their part size.
  9. Foxster

    Slowing down at DRES

    If your only aim is to return science and a crewman then there is nowhere that you can't make a direct re-entry from (without making orbit first) with a mk1 capsule and a heatshield with 20% ablator.
  10. Foxster

    Need rudimentary help about fuel flow

    It is working as designed, the difference between the flow through decouplers and ducts is that ducts only flow one way, the direction of the arrow on the duct. Decouplers flow both ways. Crossfeed on decouplers is kinda OK if you have just drop tanks. If you have engines in the outer stack though (as in your example) then things can get messy. The outer tank with the higher priority gets used first but when empty the outer engines gets fed by the inner tank, which usually is not the desired behaviour as you'd want the outer engine to stop running and you'd stage that stack off. An enhancement request was made to be able to set the flow direction of de-couplers. In the meantime it's perhaps best to stick with ducts. As well as being one way, they do have the additional advantage of making fuel flow visually more obvious. When I have more time I'll try to answer some of your other questions.
  11. I'm not sure how entirely unrealistic it is though. In the picture above, in reality the sharp back end of that nose cone would produce a lot of turbulence behind it and a fair amount of air would interact with the tanks. There'd be no clean cone of air protecting the tanks behind the nose cone from the effects of air flow, it would be more complex than that. I'd say it's a thing that is difficult to model in KSP. By this point though I think we should be further along than having air just flow straight through everything.
  12. For places like Eve, airbrakes can be mercilessly exploited. As long as they are inside a cylinder behind the rim of a forward heatshield they are occluded from the effect of heat but are quite unoccluded as far as drag is concerned. This means they can be quite effective in producing lots of drag at the the back end whilst be immune to re-entry heat.
  13. Foxster

    Saw a flightpath / trajectory window mod

    Trajectories is there but I thought that just shows in map view. Didn't think it could create a popup window like that.
  14. Is this not widely known? Occlusion in KSP only works for heat and for adjacent joined parts. In other words, you can't reduce the drag of trailing parts by have a larger part out front. Similarly, draggy parts like airbrakes are always in the slipstream even with larger parts out front. "Also, entering a planet sideways as opposed to head on (with a lower surface area in the wind) most assuredly causes you to slow down faster." That's because you are presenting a lot of flat draggy faces of parts into the wind. If you go in head on, all the parts are still draggy, just a lot less so, even if visibly behind a large thing like a heatshield. This is the last big physics non-realistic effect in KSP that there seems to be no sign of being addressed.
  15. I see what you mean. I guess though that the stabilising effect will not be right at the back, so you'll get a pivot effect.