Jump to content

Starhawk

Moderator
  • Posts

    3,412
  • Joined

Posts posted by Starhawk

  1. Crowning moments of awesome, indeed.

    I loved the running gag about Gregmore's invisibility.  And the Ghost as Gregmore's counterpart Kerbulan is absolutely brilliant!

    Gregmore being remembered by everyone is perfect.

    You mentioned in a previous post about the readers of the series being thoughtful.  I have to tell you that without a truly thoughtful writer we wouldn't have anything to be thoughtful about.  Your thinking about the story as much as you have is what makes Kerbfleet so magical to me.  Reading the panels above brought back that warm, wonderful Kerbfleet feeling that I so grew to love.

    Thank you a thousand times for bringing the story back to life!


    Happy Ecstatic landings!

  2. I'm so pleased to see new pages!

    14 hours ago, Just Jim said:

    Please tell Bill that it's OK to cheat.

    I'll echo what Jim said.  @Mister Dilsby please make liberal use of any universe-altering technology that will allow us to once again be immersed in the Kerbfleet universe.

    Thank you so much for these stories!  As I see above, your loyal readers are thrilled to see you return, and even more thrilled to see Kerbfleet come to life once again.

    For Science!
    For Kerbfleet!


    Happy Overjoyed landings!

  3. Hello @Kirian and welcome to the KSP Forum.

    I have not landed on Tylo in KSP2, but I did a number of Tylo landings in KSP1.  Since the Kerbolar system remains largely unchanged, the information I have to impart should still be relevant.

    First, there are several quite different strategies for landing on a body which has no atmosphere.  One of the common ones I have seen is what I will call 'stop and drop'.  Starting from a basically circular orbit around the target body one simply points retrograde and burns until the lander is basically motionless with regard to the surface (orbital velocity zero).  With the lander now falling straight down, the engine is pointed at the ground and the craft is slowed as needed to result in a gentle landing.  The lower the gravity of the target body, the easier this is.  However, it is not efficient.  The orbital velocity is completely removed while the lander is still far above the surface and all further burning is simply to remove the velocity accumulated while falling.  Pretty much all of this is wasted.

    To land efficiently, the periapsis is lowered as close to the surface as possible and the retrograde burn to remove orbital velocity happens near the periapsis.  Ultimately, you want to finish the burn and bring your lander to zero orbital velocity just as you finish falling and touch down.  In practice this is quite easy on low gravity bodies.  Of course, on low gravity bodies the inefficiency of 'stop and drop' is much lower and so less fuel is saved.  On higher gravity bodies, this is not only difficult to achieve, but is a rather hair-raising experience.  On Tylo it is downright terrifying.  But the amount of fuel saved versus 'stop and drop' is dramatic.

    One of things necessary to make this work is a sufficiently high TWR.  It is necessary to remove all orbital velocity in as short a time as possible so that the periapsis can start as low as possible and gravity has as little time as possible to accelerate your lander into the ground.  The less vertical component to your landing burn, the less fuel is wasted.  I don't remember the exact figures I have used, but it seems to me that you want a TWR comfortably over 2 as you complete the removal of orbital velocity and prevent Tylo's gravity from smashing your lander into the surface.

    With an efficient landing trajectory and sufficient TWR, it should be possible to design a lander with something like 5300 to 5500 m/s dV and successfully pull off landing and return to orbit.  It will take careful design of the lander and probably quite a bit of trial and error to get the periapsis and the landing zone just right.

    It has been said in KSP1 that there are three big boss missions.  Getting to Moho, landing on Tylo, and returning from the surface of Eve.  The same should more or less be true for KSP2.  I wish you the best of luck and I hope this is somewhat helpful.


    Happy landings!

  4. Some content has been removed.

    As has too often been the case, this discussion was taken into bickering and personal remarks.  Please be civil towards each other.  Please be polite to each other.  Please respect one another.

    We know that when emotions run high it can be easy to allow that to affect how and what you post.  Please try to take the time before posting to ensure that you are posting in a reasonable manner. 

    Some off topic material was also removed.


    Thank you for your understanding,
    Forum Moderation Team

  5. 16 minutes ago, Stoup said:

    If it was planned from day one... Why was this fact not communicated day 1? Or when people were upset in general about the price? Would have been the best to mention this then, rather than to infer that the only 'price drop' we could expect was the fact that we spent 50 on EA instead of 60 on full release

    But it was mentioned.

    IMG_4022.png


    Happy landings!

  6. On 6/11/2023 at 4:52 AM, Wheehaw Kerman said:

    It’s possible that by the time we’re ready to launch an interstellar shot, we’ll have our infrastructure in the Kerbol system built and more or less maxed, and be perfectly happy to fast forward until the starship arrives and then focus on the new system, leaving the Kerbals at home as a source of mostly automated supply missions.

    This is exactly the sort of thing I would expect given the time scales we are discussing.

    On 6/11/2023 at 11:28 AM, Scarecrow71 said:

    I'm looking forward to interstellar, mostly because I'm curious to see if we get planets who orbit their stars in clockwise fashion.

    This is a matter of frame of reference, it seems to me.  KSP uses the plane of the ecliptic as the reference.
    I am speculating that there is no correlation between the ecliptic planes of various star systems.
    So, when looking at a new star system, the reference frame could be chosen based on that system's ecliptic plane.  When choosing, it would purely be a matter of convenience which way you have the planets orbiting.

    On 6/11/2023 at 11:28 AM, Scarecrow71 said:

    Or if we get planets that spin on their axes (axi?  Axises?) In the opposite direction.

    Axes.
    Well, we already have axial tilt so, in theory, it would seem that these could easily be added simply by specifying their axial tilt as 180 degrees.


    Happy landings!

  7. And another hearty rewelcome to you!

    11 minutes ago, LittleBitMore said:

    I've upgraded my KSP skills, and I've landed on Tylo

    Tylo landing is one of the bigger challenges in KSP.   Congratulations!


    Happy landings!

×
×
  • Create New...