Jump to content

Zhetaan

Members
  • Content Count

    930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

900 Excellent

2 Followers

About Zhetaan

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

4,317 profile views
  1. There's no specific game mode for that; however, a combination of MechJeb and kOS would work for that. The combination is not truly necessary: if you are a sufficiently inventive coder, then kOS on its own can do everything that MechJeb can do. Since you ask specifically about launch and turning, I believe that there are no truly automated launches; at the least, you are going to need to press space or otherwise tell it to start. The game requires user input for that (probably because Squad thought the pun was funny--I'm surprised that you don't begin your descent into the atmosphere b
  2. I'd like to chime in and say that I appreciate the attention to detail, so thanks for that. I am curious, though, about the decision to make EVA propellant equal to 5 kg/unit in density. There has been a long-standing fan idea that EVA fuel, in function if not in its exact formulation, is some variation of monopropellant (and there are a few mods that make this relationship explicit), so I am a little surprised to see that you've chosen to give it the same density as the bipropellant mix rather than the 4 kg/unit of monopropellant. That being said, I have not looked too deeply into the
  3. @Tristen Simon: I suppose that this is technically a gameplay question, though don't be surprised should you you find this moved to KSP Discussion. Anyway, I typically go in for tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek puns, metaphors, and allusions in my mission/vessel names. My first space station, which is normally early enough that it is actually functionally useless--but nevertheless often provides good contract opportunities--is almost always called Bridge to Anywhere in reference both to the bridge in Alaska and the quote about getting to orbit being halfway to anywhere. I usually
  4. Welcome to the forum! Thanks for stopping by. Generally, docking is best done slowly; you'll want to keep your closing velocity under .3 metres per second. Keeping it to .2 or even .1 is arguably better. If you're bumping hard enough that you need to start over, then you're going too fast. Mating docking ports is a subtle touch, not a smash-and-grab. This requires some finesse, but since you are able to get direct hits, I will assume that you have the aiming part of that finesse more or less figured out and need only to reduce speed. That being said, it is possible that you have
  5. I can certainly appreciate running the numbers, though I think that the fact that you are also using this infrastructure to run rescue and part recovery contracts does confound the data somewhat. Regardless, I can also appreciate that what you are doing is working--I have reservations about saying whether any particular approach works 'best' but that's a separate discussion--so, put succinctly: good job! I do have a question for you: are you running any strategies, as well, or are these the raw, unadulterated numbers?
  6. I'll offer some possibilities: If you want to staff your space program with more than a few Kerbals, then rescue contracts are a good way to go because they give you people and pay you for it, instead of the increasing-costs model for hiring in the Astronaut Complex. If you don't like the Kerbals that you rescue, then you can fire them and rescue others. There is also a refuelling mod called Kethane that uses a finite-resource model for refuelling, and you can stretch your supply with unwanted Kerbals and the KE-WAITNONOSTOP-01 Kerbal Unreconstitutionator ... though I suppose that's not
  7. It's called the vis-viva equation: v2 = μ [(2 / r ) - (1 / a)] Where: v = your orbital velocity μ = the standard gravitational parameter of the body that you're orbiting (the body's mass times the universal gravitation constant--Kerbin's is 3.5316 x 1012 m3/s2) r = your current radial distance from the body (because of the way that KSP shows altitude, you need to add 600 kilometres--Kerbin's radius--to your sea-level altitude) a = the semi-major axis of your orbit (that is the sum of periapsis + apoapsis + Kerbin diameter all divided by 2) Comparing these is fairly strai
  8. A second, also important caveat in addition to what @Spricigo mentioned is that, as @bewing said, tourist contracts are best for quick money in the early game. Although it is possible to complete the tech tree without leaving the Kerbin system, from a contract and exploration point of view, that is still the early game. I generally don't consider it mid-game until I'm either conducting Duna/Eve missions or exploring asteroids, but of course I admit that there is no official word defining that--what is important to you is that I think you're still seeing good returns from your tourist contrac
  9. For me, that settles it: you have a drag problem. This is a good point to raise; you may want to set your LFO tanks to drain from the bottom-most to the top-most, since you have so many in the stack. However, I don't think it's central to your problem: if you're flipping at 350 m/s, then you're not draining enough of the propellant for its mass distribution to contribute much to the instability.
  10. I don't have much to add, except to say that one thing that I did not notice (and if someone did say it above, then please accept my apologies) is that you get less drift when you are in a higher orbit. The orbits are larger, which means that the angular sweep over the same period of time (meaning the size of the angle in the orbit that you travel through during the operation, or, to be more technically accurate, the change in true anomaly) is less. Also, the orbital speed is lower, which reduces the sweep even more.
  11. That is perfectly acceptable, and about in the middle of the range that people generally recommend for those starting out with this. Others have mentioned Kerbal Engineer, but your question asks for stock, so aside from the thrust-to-weight readout that is now stock, your other option is to calculate it by hand. That's not too difficult; KSP gives you the thrust values for each engine in the VAB. You'll want the (atm) value for launches, rather than the vacuum value. Add up the thrust of all of the engines that light in the first stage, and that's your total rocket thrust. I believ
  12. There's also the Mammoth, which is actually four Vectors in a trenchcoat.
  13. Oh, certainly. I don't think that the Principia people guarantee the long-term stability of the system. I know that they needed to make a lot of adjustments just to keep it stable in the short term, but insofar as total system longevity is concerned, well, suffice it to say that the KSP solar system was never designed to be realistic. I think that the design paradigm is essentially to establish a system that is pseudo-stable for a long-enough period of time to avoid unmitigated chaos during a typical career save. On the other hand, realistic or not, if you run enough mods then your com
  14. Try this and see what you think. It's not exactly a step-by-step guide, but it does a decent job of both elucidating the theory and examining the extent of the possible solution space. There are several different kinds of cyclers, of which the Aldrin cycler is but one. I'll help you to begin: to even start establishing a cycler, you'll need the synodic period of the two bodies that you want to visit. Since Kerbin is its primary, the Mun has no synodic period with Kerbin and so a cycler between Kerbin and the Mun in the traditional sense is not possible. However, and with respect to other
×
×
  • Create New...