qoonpooka

Members
  • Content Count

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About qoonpooka

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement... or I did. It's stopped working, I assume because of the new version. I prefer to fly rockets rather than slinkies. Can anyone suggest an alternative mod that works with 1.4?
  2. Have a lander and a tanker mated up over the Mun. Built it because I had a dock-over-the-Mun contract and so figured I'd launch this landing mission, with full science package, in two parts, possibly leave the reusable lander in orbit for later. Both launches work fine, I get 'em docked up and they're fine... except that while I can alt-right-click the two tanks, there's no options to send fuel between them. Oops. I forgot to get R&D Level 2. Okay, annoying, but no problem. I grab some contracts and scrape together the cash, I was only 100k short anyway, and bam, R&D Lvl 2 now complete. Then Patch 1.4 hits. #Welp, good by mods. Anyway I finally got the time to fly the Munar landing mission... except I STILL can't transfer fuel. Why can't I move fuel from the tanker (on right) to the lander (on left) - the tanks are separated by: Stack decoupler, heat shield, passenger compartment, command pod, 2xClampotron Jr. & a small-to-tiny adapter. EDIT: Apparently it's the heatshield. Never had that stop me before, but 2-for-2 folks say it can't be done so I'll rebuild another tanker, I guess.
  3. I'm impressed by a number of things (including your ability to rebuild my truss from visual, and even got the LT-400 and LV-909 included! In re the truss having less drag.... Sigh. Are the fairings one of those parts that's just there for immersion but actually hampers you? Do they EVER provide less drag than a spiked ball of dragness?
  4. This was the solution. Moving the CoM forward like this did the trick. I wasn't even aware that this was a thing that could be done. Payload is in orbit without any other changes. Took two tries because the fairing is so huge that it blows up the payload if you eject it while under thrust. Cutting engines just long enough for the fairing to clear did the trick.
  5. Thank you for taking the time! Here's the answer to your question: 1a) Just Precise Node. What you see is what you get. 1b) Several. As you can see the TWR is quite low, so at 1km I'm only doing 80m/sec or so. When I start the turn with 5-deg there, I lose control at 15,000m pretty consistently, and prograde is around 30 degrees inclined from horizon. When I go for a shallower turn, as you suggest in #2, I can get up to 22,000m, but again 30 degrees inclined. What happens in all scenarios is that this is the point where I don't feel my vertical velocity is sufficient to not crash and I have to hesitate away from prograde or it will naturally lawn dart. 1c) Loss of control happens at probably about 2 degrees AoA, full-on flip out is hard to distinguish from this but somewhere in the 20-30 range. I can keep it to slow, unstoppable turn until about then. 1d) Rocket does not fit on screen, attaching another image here for the bottom half. Both photos are at maximum zoom-out. 1e) A good time after SRB ejection. The whole thing is very stable (and yet still fairly responsive to control) through the liftoff. It's only when it wants to gravity turn way too fast that we run into problems. Once you've started the gravity turn it will readily yaw itself at an ever-increasing rate. I've tried to slow it as much as I can by hanging out in the westward edge of the prograde marker. (As long as I'm in the circle I seem to be okay.) 1f) In photo, aside from the four thumpers, 1 skipper. All engines fire at launch, the thumpers are there to give me velocity, without the skipper their TWR is 1.01. When they cut loose, the skipper is only .84. It's enough to continue ascending, however. TWR is around 1.2 when loss of control happens. The skipper is the most powerful engine I have. Kickbacks won't fit because the launch pad can't handle the weight. I've tried using two kickbacks and two Thumper/Hammer stacks but the whole rocket becomes very wiggly all of a sudden, below the 2nd orange tank. 2) I've done a straight ascent to 10,000 meters and then initiated a gravity turn, control was maintained but the gravity turn still eventually ran away from me, loss of control at 22,000m instead of 15,000m. I suspect I don't have a fine enough control to initiate a gravity turn gentle enough for this thing. I can try going even higher to reduce the aerodynamic forces and essentially go for a dragless horizontal flight. Gonna need more dV, I suspect, not sure how to get it. 3) I usually use the Delta-Deluxe and have no problems at all. The AV-R8 is beefier. I don't see the in 'standard canard' in my aeroparts. Is it the 'tail fin' or have I not unlocked the node in question. 4) I'm worried about that many clamp-o-trons. This is a station that will be moving from LKO to Minmus to satisfy two contracts (at a steep loss, but I wanted the fueling station anyway). So finding a way to put this payload in orbit is important to me. This structure will be under thrust stresses. Replying to other folks trying to help: @MaxL_1023 1) Rocket is stable while SRBs are attached, fins are on the lower orange tank. 2) An asparagus staging option is interesting, but it'll make that fairing stick out roflsauce far. 3) Skipper does gimbal, or are you referring to some other engine? I probably don't have it unlocked. The Skipper is as far as I've managed this game. 4) Don't have 3.75m parts. The fairing here isn't to protect the payload so much as it is to reduce drag. There's 20 or so girder segments on that thing, then PV panels and lights and struts and ports. As bad as this fairing is, I can't imagine the drag on the truss isn't going to be so very much worse. @5thHorseman That's an interesting idea! I'm going to try it and see how it goes.
  6. I have this space station structural component I'm trying to launch. It's a ton of girders, girder-to-small adapters, and clamp-o-trons. Eventually it will hold the fuel tanks and any large craft that dock at Minmus for fuel. But first I need to get it into the sky. The vessel is very stable at launch and at low speeds. As it exceeds 300m/sec, however, I run into problems. It begins to gravity turn too steeply and any deviation from prograde results in a loss of control and tumble. The payload is only 6 tons, IIRC. I suspect the fuel needed to lift it to orbit is simply too far back but I can't figure out how to generate anything like enough drag in the back. I'm already running 8 AV-R8 winglets. When I ran with full-on wings as stabilizers, the elevons didn't have any control authority. Image included, happy to clarify.
  7. I'm playing on ultra-hard, with payouts down at 40%, so they're barely offering me 200k all-in. I have to be picky and careful about what contracts I accept because margins are super tight.
  8. Does this mean that multiple docking ports won't provide a less-wobbly, more secure connection for parts of a large, interplanetary vessel?
  9. And that's not the wiggliest thing in the history of ever? Iiiiiinteresting.
  10. So, based on the answers in this thread, does flipping one of these over: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/TVR-400L_Stack_Quad-Adapter Not attach the four motors to the quad-side of things at all four points?
  11. Sure, but hitchhikers are heavy and I've only just unlocked the Skipper.
  12. AIUI (No doubt someone more experienced will come along) you'll want to use it in the same manner as you'd perform your ejection burn. The problem with this is that your maneuver time is dependent upon the TWR, which will change - sometimes dramatically - when you hit the stack separator and ditch the now exhausted stage. (You'll also now have extra space junk, but you may not care.) I think KER, at least, is able to figure out the length of burn including a stage separation, but KSP can't even adjust for change in mass during long burns. tl;dr - use that extra fuel for your ejection burn but be ready for the burn time reported by KSP to be wildly incorrect.
  13. Yeah, I have no problem contract stacking. Mostly I was just looking for confirmation that I hadn't missed a sweet infrastructure project. I think this required 11 Kerbals and 4k fuel on board. That's a huge payload to go anywhere with.
  14. An interesting contract came up with a Kerbol orbit between Duna and Kerbin. I thought, for a moment, and my brain said to me: "Hey. That means you could stop for gas on your way from Kerbin to anywhere beyond!" And so I moved the mouse over to click 'accept.' My finger had velocity when another part of my brain suddenly burst out of it's office screaming at the top of it's lungs, "STOP THE PRESSING!!!!!" There was a flurry of mental papers and commotion as the mouseclick was aborted, and I look at that part of my brain tensely, waiting for the explanation. It took a moment to gather itself and then added: "If you park that station in that orbit, you'll never know if it's ANYWHERE near where you're going to want it to be for those trips. Sure, you can maneuver to intercept but each orbit being more than a year, rendezvous maneuvers could take decades to complete unless you're carrying way more fuel than you need to complete the mission anyway. Even if you do find it useful for refueling, any mission with that kind of stop will DEFINITELY take decades to finish." I passed on the contract. But was that part of my brain correct?
  15. It used to be the case that, if a probe or whatever ran out of power, but had generation, that communication would stall, awaiting sufficient charge again... but this seems to no longer be the case. Transmitting the data to KSC in the meantime can be done by flying someone to the station and then taking that data during EVA and storing it in the capsule that will be returned to Kerbin.