automcdonough
-
Posts
327 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by automcdonough
-
-
Both of the Bentusi ships that I've seen in Homeworld. I like all of Homeworld's ships, but the Bentusi seem particularly awesome.
It seems practical to have a pile of outer plating, yet a thriving open city on the inside
-
i've also heard (but not tested personally) that things collide normally on separate craft (like your ramp there). When it's part of the same craft, such as a ramp shaped lander, that all is out the window.
for example, this:
i tried everything for ramp parts but the wheels act frictionless and fall through all of them as soon as i undock.
-
from what i can tell it calcs out to the same ratio. the little orange side-mounts def are best thrust/weight ratio for engines.
-
i always map rover controls to numpad so no overlap on anything
-
another part question, any air intakes i can use?? maybe the side scoop?
-
why 3 or more pieces? what is challenging about making a craft and putting spin on it?
-
I love MJ. I'm a crap pilot and I need it, it makes the game more playable and fun for me. And I'm fine with that. The engineer in me needs consistent launches and orbit transfers to refine my designs.
-
And the 'gravity boost' from Kerbin doesn't have any effect here. Just think about it, if a highly elliptical orbit somehow gave you a boost in your orbital velocity then every time you went around Kerbin your orbit would get a little higher. There are other threads that go into this more, but it's not as simple as it is sometimes suggested to be.
I think you misinterpreted it. The orbit doesn't magically change by itself.
The d/v you impart at lower altitude has a greater effect than the same d/v at higher altitude. You can see it too.
1- Go into an elliptical orbit.
2- set up an orbital maneuver, just straight prograde for 300 d/v or so.
3- drag the start point of this node around and take note of how the predicted apoapsis changes.
In addition to this effect, d/v spent to circularize a higher orbit is just wasted if your goal is just to hike off to a different planet. The actual amount of fuel difference I have no idea. I've also done the kethane refuel at minimus thing..
Like you said there's a million threads on the matter if you search.
-
every time i've tried was a fail, the wheels don't treat the parts as a ramp, they are frictionless and fall thru
-
go straight from kerbin.
-
In my opinion it's too much weight, I think you over-built. Try something a little lighter. Set a goal and build to it, nothing more.
1 man rover with jets to land and take off?
bam. 5.7t with ~1200 d/v of fuel. Add a little more juice for take-off and you're golden. That thing on mun has TWR >1 on RCS alone.
craft file in here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25339-stock-99-isplore-rover
Can't help it, sorry. I love these things.
I'll modify one of these tonight and try it out to see what sort of d/v it needs. Are you losing a lot in setting up docking? maybe try one of those with the ions on it..
-
Try mine, I just landed it on Bop (low grav just like minimus)
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25339-stock-99-isplore-rover
If you decide the skycrane isn't working for you there's always the "screw it I'll just use RCS" option. Low grav is fun like that.
-
TWR doesn't matter for it so a pair of ions would be better for inner planets by far than using rcs or an ant. Outer ones however you'd have to test out their actual effectiveness. Ant will probably be better but uses much more fuel by comparison
Typically I try to land near an anomaly and hoof it from there, no 3 hour long treks. So an ant might be better for me, but I'll keep the ion around in case the mission calls for a long journey. In either case, once it's up to speed you can turn it off to conserve fuel until you need traction for something. TWR might not matter but overall thrust does for sure. If i use the RCS to pin it down, it sticks to the ground like I'm driving on Kerbin.
-
As promised did my low grav test.
Results = space spoiler DOES work. I still wasn't able to hotrod around everywhere like on mun but it made the difference between it being drivable at all and just ice. The sun is dimmer there too so for normal cruising had it set low. Set it higher when trying to accel or turn.. and if i needed to do anything quickly just used RCS because overall the ion is pretty underwhelming (as usual). But it got there. I'm a little torn on if it's worth the weight compared to just more RCS fuel or maybe an ant motor setup. I picked ion because you can let it cook for hours for a lot of driving around..At least it looks neat
-
hah, didn't even notice em up on that massive thing.
Anyways, results = space spoiler DOES work. I still wasn't able to hotrod around everywhere like on mun but it made the difference between it being drivable at all and just ice. The sun is dimmer there too so for normal cruising had it set low. Set it higher when trying to accel or turn.. and if i needed to do anything quickly just used RCS because overall the ion is pretty underwhelming (as usual). But it got there. I'm a little torn on if it's worth the weight compared to just more RCS fuel or maybe an ant motor setup. I picked ion because you can let it cook for hours for a lot of driving around..At least it looks neat
-
it doesn't take much altitude for those..
-
I bet with some fancy flying you could do it, would be some balancing to keep the prograde vertical. I always just used MJ, didn't think to try it this way, but now with the time slowdown keeping things controllable it might be worth a shot.
-
I agree it's more difficult than it's worth. Even if you get the mass dead-nuts centered, the counterweight has different part count/drag to cause it to fly as if the weight is still off-center. My best attempt had a wing attached to a long line of struts sticking straight out the side, looked silly.
-
less is more, you have waay too many parts going on there.
-
My biggest issue is trying to line up planetary intercepts, seems impossible without at least protractor or MJ. The orbital planning helps in a 'grind it till you find it' kind of way.
-
-
go back and read the first post
-
I did some driving around on Bop last night. Handles great except for the low-grav traction issue, nothing I can do about that.. the RCS was VERY helpful because even going only 6m/s was enough to turn a hill into a stunt ramp! Flight SAS does a good job too.
This was the longest drive too, running out of juice because more of an issue. I'm going to update this with some solar panels, I really don't want to add another RTG because they are kind of heavy. Also the skycrane has like twice the fuel it needs! The single tank is convenient but going down to probe tanks should lighten it up. Stay tuned.
Also I've decided to get back to the manned pod version as well. The ladder seat just isn't doing it for me.
-
I was trying to avoid the problem of carrying around the takeoff fuel on the rover itself.
oh, it's just for landing. It's surprisingly not that topheavy leaving it on in case i want to blast off again, but the original plan was just to land and ditch it.
Designing A Resuable Munar Rover With Crew...?
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
I started tweaking one of my rovers for this last night, it's packing twice the fuel and still seems fairly nimble. But then I looked up this chart and decided I need even more.
According to this, going from LKO to mun landing is 1710m/s each way. So a capable rover for your mission must pack at least 3420d/v of fuel. It's a decent amount of weight, possibly too much to slap onto my base isplore design and still be offroading at 20+m/s. Maybe. Only one way to find out but I probly won't have a chance to mess with it again for a few days.
Chances are either move up to bulkier slower design like others have been posting or consider a larger lander to carry all that fuel that the rover can detach from.